Can you provide a link to the news articles or whatever that report this? It seems to go against what I’ve read in some posts in this thread.
I’m confused by your post. You list your religious affiliation as Roman Catholic, yet you seem to find what happened to an innocent baby irrelevant (if I’m misreading your post, please correct me) and you paint the whole incident in a positive light, like somehow it’s good that all this happened because it offers clarification to which services are provided at the hospital.Well, if they weren’t willing to comply with the rules of the Church then they should lose their “Catholic” status…and it’s probably better that way so they don’t have to go through all that again and they can concentrate on treating their emergency patients without worrying about being tossed around in the news again. Furthermore, patients who go there will know what kind of treatment to expect when they are in emergent danger. Being given choices about where to go for medical treatment is a wonderful thing. It’s even more wonderful when you know what to expect and from where.
Thank you. Your explanation is excellent.
I expect a Captain of a ship to do his best to save ALL lives charged to him. Evidently from past posts, you seem to think one life has more value over the other. Remember, It was the Mother who was diseased not the baby - if you wish to use this argument.Well, if they weren’t willing to comply with the rules of the Church then they should lose their “Catholic” status…and it’s probably better that way so they don’t have to go through all that again and they can concentrate on treating their emergency patients without worrying about being tossed around in the news again. Furthermore, patients who go there will know what kind of treatment to expect when they are in emergent danger. Being given choices about where to go for medical treatment is a wonderful thing. It’s even more wonderful when you know what to expect and from where.
The Sister in this case was an Hospital administrator - who served on the Ethics Committee. She took a vow. As a defender of the Faith - how was she heroic?
Well, here, let me clarify. I wouldn’t want you to misunderstand me. When I go to a hospital, I expect to be treated medically with sound medical practices. I do not expect to be subject to the religious affiliation of my health care providers whether they are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or yes, Catholic. I expect their judgement to be based on my diagnosis, which have procedures related to their diagnosis and are the standards of practice. If for whatever reason, they don’t provide the standard of care for my emergency, I’d like to know about it in advance so I don’t have to go there. In addtition, I want to be fully participant in my care, and if I can’t be, I want my designated durable power of attorney to be participant. The patient has the right to to be involved in their treatment. They have the right to participate in the course of treatment. And they have the right to refuse it. That means, if I am of a certain religion (ie Catholic), I want my rights protected. I wouldn’t want my doctor to criticize my choice to adhere to Catholic rules and laws. I would want him or her to tell me what I need to stabilize my condition and return me to health, and or to consent to it. And I expect every patient being wheeled into the emergency room with power of consent to be treated the same. And I’m sure our Protestant, Jewish and Muslim friends feel the same. If a level one hospital cannot provide the care demanded of a level one, then it’s level one status should be removed. Likewise, if a hospital will not provide the care recommended for a particular patient, they need to disclose that so the patient knows in advance. The publicity resulting from this situation at Joe’s will provide potential patients information they need to make informed decisions when they need medical care. And that’s a good thing whether one is Catholic or not.
The pathology in preeclampsia lies within the placenta to a large extent and directly affects the baby as well, so this idea that pregnancy complications or diseases complicated by pregnancy affect only the mother while the baby lies safe in a little bubble, is simply wishful thinking. What happens in the uterus or placenta can affect every part of the baby or of the mother - the two lives are truly entwined even though they are at the same time distinctly two. Preeclampsia is one of the most common reasons for a baby to be delivered before viability is definite - and both lives are often at risk from the direct effects of the disease when this is done.
Actually, I caution about your use of the above bolded word. In this case, we aren’t told that this was an “emergency”. None, of hospital released posts has said this was an “emergency”. When you inject the word into your posts - you are trying to make it seem that it was. If you have no evidence of this…
But they didn’t remove the placenta. They performed an abortion. And I wasn’t under the impression that baby was “safe in a little bubble”. I’m fully aware that it would’ve most likely died had it been left alone. It doesn’t make the abortion moral.
There is no single procedure called abortion (back on my soapbox again, I am). Do you know how a placenta is removed at that stage of pregnancy? Usually with a D&C. Is a D&C always illicit regardless of the intent? Abortion in this case is a moral judgment, not a particular procedure.
Cardiogenic shock means that the person’s circulatory system is failing and without significant and immediate intervention the body will no longer be able to pump adequate blood (and the oxygen it contains) to the various organs which will fail one by one, until everything shuts down and the patient dies .
I understand that you seem to have more medical knowledge than I do and I appreciate that. However that does not hinder my ability to understand correct Church teaching in anyway. Regardless of the method (yes I understand there are different methods of abortion), in order to qualify as an “abortion”, at least in Church teaching, there has to be direct, intended (and by that I don’t mean that the doctors “intent” to save the mother’s life, I mean that the doctors intend to carry out the procedure which involves direct harm to the fetus, they’re not doing it accidentally, regardless of why theyr’e doing it) harming of the baby. A removal of a fallopian tube does not require the direct harming of the baby, nor does the removal of a uterus. I’m assuming, if such a procedure would even be licit, knowing that the induction of labor as a treatment for preeclampsia prior to viability (and yes I know viability upwards of twenty weeks is debatable, at eleven weeks, it’s not) is not licit, that it would be medically possible to perform a surgery to remove the placenta without directly destroying the fetus in the process. It doesn’t matter that a D&C is an acceptable or preferred method in the medical world to remove a placenta. The ultimate goal of Catholic ethics is not to prolong human life at the cost of eternal life. I would assume this would be the big “difference” between medical ethics and Catholic ethics to which Bishop Olmsted is referring.
If you can show that they simply removed the placenta without touching the baby, then removed the baby without directly killing it, okay (and again, I don’t even know if that would be licit considering induction at this point would not be). A D&C being the medically acceptable or most preferred form of removing a placenta does not change the fact that the baby is directly harmed in the process. I’m not trying to keep the baby alive here. I know that the baby will most likely die should it and the mother be left alone and will most definitely die should the placenta be removed in anyway. The point is not the death of the baby. The point is that in the procedures defined as abortions the baby is not passively left to die, it is actively killed. It doesn’t matter if the ultimate goal is to save the life of the mother, or that the baby will inevitably die. The doctor does not have the right to actively take the life of the baby in any procedure for any reason whatsoever. One can understand this point without understanding every technical step of any of the procedures.
Actually, we are told from the very first article posted about this senario that the woman in question was in a life-threatening situation. What there is no evidence of is that this was not an emergency. All other articles, regardless of whether or not they agree with the course of action taken, all agree that the woman was in trouble. The first article said she was a “critically ill patient” and her situation was described as, “a last-minute, life-or-death drama in late 2009”, which could place her in the intensive care unit, just as precarious a place as the emergency room. She was in a hospital, seeking medical intervention, and expected to be treated for her medical condition. As to pulmonary hypertension, it can be an emergency in the right cirumstances, such as pregnancy. In any event she was chronically ill. We can beat it to death, but we don’t know how much an emergency this situation was, or wasn’t. And that wasn’t the point of my post. You can re-read it, it speaks for itself
Points well taken. The medical intent here would be removal of the ‘diseased’ placenta. The question (and I’ve seen conflicting theological opinions) is whether a D&C is always illicit? Viability, I think, would be of less concern here - just as it is in ectopic pregnancies. An important consideration is that both lives are at risk: going into shock places the baby at imminent risk of death as well, regardless of the fact that nothing can be done to preserve its life outside the womb. It always bothers me that the argument becomes mother or baby because whatever puts her life at risk also risks the baby’s survival.
The diagnosis of cardiogenic shock certainly places the patient in an emergency, and in a life-and-death situation.